memo to the planning commissioncommissions.sfplanning.org › cpcpackets ›...

www.sfplanning.org

Memo to the Planning Commission Academy of Art University Update

HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 1, 2015

Date: September 24, 2015 Case No.: 2008.0586E Subject: Academy of Art University Project Update Staff Contact: Tina Chang – (415) 575-9197 [email protected] AAU Lead Mary Woods – (415) 558-6315 (Lead Planner) Planner: [email protected]

ACADEMY OF ART UPDATE HEARING OVERVIEW Staff would like to provide a general update to the Planning Commission on the following topics involving the Academy of Art University:

• Environmental Review • Institutional Master Plan • Estimated Review Timeline • Policy issues

o Shuttles o Sites that are not Code-compliant o PDR Conversion

• Feedback on Processing Strategies

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW EIR Update The Academy of Art University (AAU) EIR is analyzing four general components:

1. Study area growth – The proposed project includes approximately 110,000 net square feet (sf) of additional residential uses to house approximately 400 students, equivalent to about 220 rooms, and 669,670 sf additional institutional space in 12 geographic study areas where AAU could occupy buildings to accommodate future growth.

2. Project site growth – The proposed project consists of six (6) additional sites that have been occupied, identified, or otherwise changed by AAU since publication of the September 2010 Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR. The six sites would include a total of 411,070 sf of institutional, bus storage and recreational uses.

3. Legalization of prior unauthorized changes –The proposed project includes legalization of changes in use and/or alterations undertaken at a number of AAU’s 34 existing sites without benefit of permits prior to issuance of the NOP.

4. Shuttle service expansion – The proposed project includes the extension of AAU’s shuttle service to serve growth in the study areas and at the project sites.

The Draft EIR was published February 25, 2015 and brought before the Planning Commission for a duly noticed public hearing on April 16, 2015. The Draft EIR Public Comment period ended on April

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

2

27, 2015. During the Draft EIR public review period, the Planning Department received 109 comments orally and in writing from several public agencies, non-governmental organizations and individuals. Planning Department Staff continues working on the Responses to Comments document, which will be presented before the Planning Commission for consideration of the Final Environmental Impact Report in approximately April, 2016.

ESTM Due to the fact that projects are evaluated under CEQA from the existing conditions at the time of publication of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to the future conditions, past actions, even if they occurred without attaining the necessary permits, are considered existing conditions. Therefore, the legalization approvals of the 34 locations occupied prior to the AAU NOP publication are part of the baseline conditions for the AAU EIR. Since AAU had already changed uses at these sites prior to the NOP, for CEQA purposes there is little or no physical change to analyze. Thus the primary analysis of the prior unauthorized changes of use for purposes of the EIR will be of the actions to legalize these uses through the permitting process. The City will rely on the EIR when considering AAU legalization approvals. Due to the need to analyze the impacts, cumulative and otherwise, of the entire AAU Project, the City has not acted on any parts of the Project pending the completion of this EIR.

To provide information to the Commission about the environmental effects from the previous physical changes from AAU’s unpermitted changes of use and AAU’s ongoing operations at these 34 locations, the Planning Department is preparing a separate information document, called the Existing Sties Technical Memorandum (ESTM). This memo will evaluate the environmental effects from the time of occupation of the building by AAU in order to provide the Commission and the public with additional information to consider when deciding whether to authorize these uses after-the-fact. The Draft ESTM will be published in approximately March 2016 and will undergo a 30-day public review and comment period during which time the Draft ESTM will be presented as an information item before both the Historic Preservation and Planning Department Commissions for review and comment. After the close of the public review period on the ESTM the Planning Department will consider all comments received on the ESTM, incorporate changes as necessary, and finalize the ESTM. The Final ESTM will be used by the Commission for information in all AAU approvals in regards to understanding the environmental impacts of the past unauthorized changes and AAU’s ongoing operations.

Figure 1 depicts the six (6) project sites evaluated as part of the EIR, and the 34 sites documented in the Existing Sites Technical Memorandum as described below. Note that this figure includes all 40 AAU sites as explained in greater detail under “Project Overview”.

INSTITUTIONAL MASTER PLAN The Planning Commission accepted an Institutional Master Plan (IMP) from AAU in 2011. Pursuant to Planning Code Section 304.5 requiring that Post-Secondary Educational Institutions have on file a current IMP with the Planning Department, describing existing and anticipated future development of that institution, an update to the IMP must be submitted every two years. AAU submitted an update in November 2013; an update is due November 2015. Planning Department staff plans to bring the IMP update as an informational item before the Planning Commission subsequent to its submission, likely in December 2015 or January 2016. A general timeline depicting the aforementioned milestones is provided below under “AAU Timeline”.

3

AAU TIMELINE Planning Department Staff has been working with AAU for a number of years on their environmental review, Institutional Master Plan and Planning Code enforcement. Below is a general timeline providing an overview of major past and future milestones. The Department first received an application for Environmental Review in May 2010. A Notice of Preparation for the EIR was published in 2010, with the Final EIR Certification expected in April 2016. Upon certification of the EIR, Planning Department Staff will embark on the processing of AAU’s that require legalization. As mentioned above, the Planning Commission accepted the AAU Institutional Master Plan (IMP) in 2011. An updated was received in November 2013 with another update due this November 2015.

POLICY ISSUES In addition to the individual site-specific issues, the Department has identified three key policy topics that span multiple sites or the institution’s operations as a whole, on which we would like to gain feedback from the Commission.

SHUTTLE SERVICE. AAU’s shuttle service was evaluated and found to have an impact on the City’s transportation system. The Draft EIR process provided mitigation measures so that the shuttle service would not result in additional burden on the City’s transit or transportation system. Since that time, AAU developed a shuttle policy, established in June 2014, to help streamline the shuttle service, and provide efficiencies, including shuttle route controls which states that residential streets should be avoided where possible. The mitigation measure also requires that AAU develop, implement and provide to the City a shuttle management plan to address peak hour shuttle demand needs of its growth. It appears that AAU’s shuttle service has been drastically improved.

NON CODE-COMPLIANT SITES. There are a number of properties that cannot be legalized without legislative amendments – some of which would legalize the loss of at-risk uses the City is seeking to preserve, including housing and Production, Repair and Distribution (PDR) uses. Staff is seeking the Commission’s guidance on how best to approach these sites, and whether the Commission would be supportive of legislative amendments that would permit the legalizations.

LOSS OF PDR. There are a number of properties that illegally converted PDR spaces. Ordinance 258-14, which became effective on December 19, 2014 imposed an interim moratorium lasting 22 months and 15 days or until the date that permanent controls are adopted and in effect. The properties at 460 and 466 Townsend contain PDR uses, which could not be converted until permanent controls are in place that would permit their conversion. It is possible that their conversion may not be permitted by permanent controls, making them non Code-compliant sites that would require additional legislative amendments to legalize the uses desired by AAU.

5

PROJECT OVERVIEW To date, the Planning Department is aware of 40 properties operated by AAU. Thirty three (33) of the 40 properties have not obtained all the required City permits and/or entitlements, including building permits and Conditional Use Authorizations. In several instances, the projects cannot be approved under the Planning Code. Legislative amendments would be required before the uses within the properties could be legalized. Of the 30 properties requiring action, 18 require Conditional Use Authorization from the Planning Commission, of which nine (9) properties require a legislative amendment.

Table 1: Academy of Art Property Breakdown

Total AAU Properties

Properties Not Approvable

Under Current Planning Code

Properties Requiring

Conditional Use Authorization

Properties Requiring

Building Permit

Properties Requiring Historic Review

Properties Containing Legal Uses

40 9 9 8 4 10

PROPERTIES CONTAINING USES NOT APPROVABLE UNDER CURRENT PLANNING CODE

The following nine properties contain uses that are not permitted by the Planning Code as it is written today. Legislative amendments would be required to allow the conversion of residential uses to student housing (Section 317(f)(1)); postsecondary institutional uses in the PDR-2 zoning district (Section 217), and institutional uses within the Service/ Arts/ Light Industrial (SALI) zoning district (Section 846.32). It should be noted that the use contained in 601 Brannan was rezoned as a Service/Arts/Light Industrial (SALI) site on April 27, 2013, which does not permit institutional uses. A grace period for legalization of non-conforming uses was built into the ordinance granting project sponsor with pending applications as of June 20, 2012 up to 36 months from the effective date of the Western SoMa Controls to attain its first building or site permit. Accordingly, 601 Brannan must receive its site permit or building permit by April 27, 2016 in order to take advantage of this legalization approval. Since the EIR is slated to be certified around April 2016, it is unlikely the first building or site permit will be attained by that time. Therefore, it is highly likely that a legislative amendment to Section 846 would be required for this property to be legalized under its current use.

6

Table 2: Properties Not Approvable Under Current Code (Also Requires Conditional Use Authorization and Building Permit)

EIR/ ESTM Address Block /

Lot Zoning Quadrant Desired Use

No. Units /

SF Legal Use Action

Required

1. ESTM 1080 Bush Street 0276/015 RC-4

NE

(Nob Hill) Student Housing

42 Dwelling Units 15 rooms

Residential

Legislative Amendment to 317(f)(1),

CUA, BP

2. ESTM 1153 Bush Street 0280/026 RC-4

NE (Civic

Center)

Student Housing

15 Dwelling

Units Residential


CUA, BP

3. EIR 2225 Jerrold 5286A/020 PDR-2 SE

(Bayview)

Institutional/ Athletic Fields

91,367 SF

Industrial Warehouse

Legislative Amendment

to 217(h)

4. ESTM 1916

Octavia Street

0640/011 RH-2 NW

Pacific Heights)

Student Housing

27 Dwelling

Units Residential


CUA, BP

5. ESTM 1055 Pine Street 0275/009 RM-4 NE

(Nob Hill) Student Housing

81 rooms Residential


CUA, BP

6. ESTM 860 Sutter Street 0281/006 RC-4

NE (Civic

Center)

Student Housing

87 Rooms Residential


CUA, BP

7. ESTM 2209 Van

Ness Avenue

0570/029 RC-3 NW

(Pacific Heights)

Student Housing

1 Dwelling

Unit Residential


CUA, BP

8. ESTM 2211 Van

Ness Avenue

0570/005 RC-3 NW

(Pacific Heights)

Student Housing

2 Dwelling Units, 1

store

Residential & Retail


CUA, BP

9. ESTM 601

Brannan Street**

3785/132 SALI SE (SOMA)

Institution (School)

73,666 SF

Light Industrial

Legislative Amendment to 846.32, CUA, BP

Total

Conversion if Approved:

Housing: 149 units, 183 rms. Industrial: 165,303 sf

**Would likely not be permitted due to establishment of SALI Zoning District, and expiring grace period for legalization of non-conforming uses; legislative amendments would likely be required for these legalizations.

7

Even upon certification of the Environmental Impact Report currently scheduled for April 2016, the subject nine properties could not proceed under the Current Planning Code. Legislative amendments to permit the conversion of residential uses to Student Housing, recreational and/or institutional in PDR-2 Zoning Districts, and institutional uses in SALI Zoning Districts. Nine (9) of the eighteen action items requiring Planning Commission review could technically be brought before the Commission upon certification of the EIR, as shown in Table 3.

PROPERTIES CONTAINING USES REQUIRING CONDITIONAL USE AUTHORIZATION

The following projects require Conditional Use authorization from the Planning Commission. They may be heard by the Planning Commission upon certification of the EIR. However, it should be noted that properties at 460 and 466 Townsend Street contain PDR uses. On December 19, 2014, the Urgency Ordinance adopted by the Board of Supervisors approving an extension of the interim PDR Conversion moratorium became effective. Accordingly, the proposed legalization of uses at these properties could not be heard by the Planning Commission until the interim zoning controls are expired or until permanent controls regarding PDR uses in the proposed Central SOMA Plan Area are in effect and permit the proposed post-secondary education institutional uses at these locations. If permanent controls do not permit institutional uses within the Western SOMA Mixed Use-Office Zoning District, a legislative amendment would be the only path for legalization.

Table 3: Properties Requiring Conditional Use Authorization (In Addition to Building Permit)


Lot Zoning Quadrant Desired Use Legal Use Action

Required

1. ESTM 1727 Lombard Street 0506/036 NC-3 /

RH-2 NW (Marina) Student Housing Motel CUA, BP

2. ESTM 1069 Pine Street 0275/008 RM-4 NE (Nob Hill)

Institutional (School) Retail CUA, BP

3. ESTM 817-831 Sutter Street 0299/021 RC-4 NE

(Civic Center) Student Housing Hotel CUA, BP

4. ESTM 2295 Taylor (aka

701 Chestnut St.)

0066/001 North Beach NCD

NE (Russian Hill)


5. ESTM 460 Townsend Street*** 3785/023 WMUO SE

(SOMA) Institutional

(School) Industrial CUA, BP

6. ESTM 466 Townsend Street*** 3785/005 WMUO SE

(SOMA) Institutional


7. ESTM 930-950 Van Ness Avenue 0718/021 RC-4 NW

(Civic Center) Institutional (Museum) Retail CUA, BP

8. ESTM 1849 Van Ness Avenue

0618/001 & 001B RC-4

NW (Pacific

Heights)


9. ESTM 2151 Van Ness Avenue 0575/015 RC-4

NW (Pacific

Heights)

Institutional (School)

Institutional (Church) CUA, BP

8

***Properties contain Production, Distribution and Repair (PDR) uses. Ordinance 258-14, effective December 19, 2014 imposed an interim moratorium lasting 22 months and 15 days or until the date that permanent controls are adopted and in effect.

PROPERTIES CONTAINING USES REQUIRING BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS

The following eight (8) properties are principally permitted and may be approved through Building Permit Applications only.

Table 4: Properties Requiring Building Permit Application

EIR/ ESTM Address Block / Lot Zoning Quad

rant Desired

Use Legal Use Action Required

1. ESTM 58-60 Federal Street 3774/074 MUO SE Institutional

(School) Office BP

2. EIR 150 Hayes Street 0811/022 C-3-G NE Institutional

(School) Office BP

3. EIR 2801

Leavenworth Street

0010/001 C-2 NW Institutional (School) Retail BP

4. ESTM 77 New

Montgomery Street

3707/014 C-3-O NE Institutional (School) Office BP

5. ESTM 180 New

Montgomery Street

3722/022 C-3-O(SD) NE Institutional (School) Office BP

6. ESTM 491 Post Street 0307/009 RC-4 NE Institutional (School) Retail BP

7. ESTM 2340 Stockton Street 0018/004 C-3-G NE Institutional

(School) Office BP

8. ESTM 620 Sutter Street 0283/004A RC-4 NE Student

Housing Hotel BP

PROPERTIES LOCATED IN ARTICLE 10 OR 11 DISTRICTS REQUIRING HISTORIC REVIEW FOR SIGNAGE

The following four (4) properties requiring action do not require Commission approval, but are located in Article 10 or 11 Historic Districts, and require Historic Preservation Review for signage and/or lighting.

9

Table 5: Properties Requiring Historic Preservation Review for Signage/ Lights

EIR/ ESTM Address Block / Lot Zoning Quad-

rant Desired


1. EIR 601-625 Polk Street 0742/002 NC-3 NE Institutional

(School) Institutional

(School) BP, HP Review

2. ESTM 655 Sutter Street 0297/012 C-3-G NE

Student Housing,

Retail

Student Housing,

Retail BP, HP Review

3. ESTM 625-629 Sutter Street 0297/014 C-3-G NE Institutional



4. ESTM 540 Powell Street 0285/009 C-3-O NE Institutional



PROPERTIES DETERMINED TO CONTAIN LEGAL USES

The following ten (10) properties were not found to be in violation of the Planning Code and contain legal uses. No action is required for these properties.

Table 6: Properties Currently Containing Legal Uses

EIR/ ESTM Address Block / Lot Zoning Quad-

rant Desired


1. ESTM 1900 Jackson Street 0592/004A RH-2 NW Student

Housing Student Housing None

2. ESTM 560 Powell Street 0285/010 RC-4

NE (Civic

Center)

Student Housing

Student Housing None

3. ESTM 736 Jones Street 0298/027 RC-4 NE Student

Housing Student Housing None

4. ESTM 740 Taylor Street 0283/012 RC-4 NE

Institutional (School) /

Retail

Institutional (School) /

Retail None

5. ESTM 575 Harrison Street

3764/198-230 MUO SE Live/Work Live/Work None

6. ESTM 168 Bluxome St.

3785/137-184 SALI SE Live/Work Live/Work None

7. EIR 121 Wisconsin 3593/004 UMU SE Parking Lot Vacant Lot None

8. EIR 700

Montgomery Street

0196/028 C-2 NE

(Financial District)

Institutional (School) Office None

9. ESTM 680-688 Sutter Street 0283/007 C-3-G NE Student

Housing Residential None

10. ESTM 410 Bush Street 3722/022 C-3-O NE Institutional (School)

Institutional (School) None

10

PROCESSING STRATEGIES There are three approaches that staff is proposing for the Commission’s consideration. A breakdown of each approach is outlined below, including the advantages and disadvantages of each. In addition, staff would like feedback from the Commission regarding whether the Commission prefers holding special AAU meetings, where multiple planners bring multiple AAU projects before the Commission, or if there is a preference to spread cases out across regularly scheduled hearings. In all, there are 19 projects requiring Commission action, including those that are not currently permitted under the Code and would require legislative amendments in order to be approved. Since properties that would require amendments to the Planning Code before legalization can occur would have additional process, Staff recommends processing these separately from those that only require Conditional Use Authorization.

Staff would like the Commission’s feedback on which of the proposed strategies is preferred with respect to processing the AAU cases. The properties in the tables below have been color coded to resemble traditional land use colors for ease of differentiating project types. Properties are color coded according to the legal land use type that would be lost should the property be legalized.

The three alternative ways that the projects could be organized and brought before the Commission are: geographical locations; project/land use type; Zoning District. Each proposed approach comes with pros and cons as summarized in the charts below.

GEOGRAPHY. Grouping cases by geography is one method for staff to bring cases before the Commission. This would provide efficiencies from a noticing perspective since projects in close proximity to one another would have the same group of neighbors, limiting the number of hearings for members of the public who are interested in AAU projects within their neighborhoods. However, projects in close proximity may have no other land use similarities other than their geographic proximity to one another; their zoning, land use, and policy implications could be varied, resulting in hearings that jump from topic-to-topic.

Staff identified three (3) neighborhoods or groupings of neighborhoods for AAU projects that could be brought to Commission based on geography. Note that properties designated with an asterisk indicate that the project cannot be approved under the current Planning Code; these projects could only be approved through the adoption of legislative amendments.

Processing by Geography

Pros Cons • Efficiencies with respect to noticing. Neighbors of

projects would be notified of projects in close proximity to one another.

• Projects may be located in different zoning districts, with different project types and policy issues, resulting in more varied topics for the Commission’s deliberations.

Residential Retail Industrial Hotel Institutional Office

11

Pacific Heights / Marina / Russian Hill



Required

1*. ESTM 1916

Octavia Street

0640/011 RH-2 NW (Pacific Heights)

Student Housing Residential

Legislative Amendment to

317(f)(1), CUA, BP

2*. ESTM 2209 Van Ness Avenue 0570/029 RC-3 NW (Pacific

Heights) Student Housing Residential


317(f)(1), CUA, BP

3*. ESTM 2211 Van Ness Avenue 0570/005 RC-3 NW (Pacific

Heights) Student Housing

Residential & Retail


317(f)(1), CUA, BP


0618/001 & 001B RC-4 NW (Pacific

Heights) Institutional

(School) Retail CUA, BP

5. ESTM

2295 Taylor (aka 701 Chestnut

St.)


NE (Russian

Hill)


6. ESTM 2151 Van Ness Avenue 0575/015 RC-4 NW (Pacific

Heights) Institutional


(Church) CUA, BP

7. ESTM 1727

Lombard Street

0506/036 RC-4 NW (Marina)

Student Housing Motel CUA, BP

* Indicates that the change of use is not permitted; legislative amendments would be required for any legalizations.

Nob Hill/ Civic Center/ Financial District



Required

8.* ESTM 1080 Bush Street 0276/015 RC-4

NE

(Nob Hill) Student Housing Residential


317(f)(1), CUA, BP

9.* ESTM 1153 Bush Street 0280/026 RC-4 NE (Civic

Center) Student Housing Residential


317(f)(1), CUA, BP

10.* ESTM 1055 Pine Street 0275/009 RM-4 NE

(Nob Hill) Student Housing Residential


317(f)(1), CUA, BP

11.* ESTM 860 Sutter Street 0281/006 RC-4 NE (Civic

Center) Student Housing Residential CUA, BP

12. ESTM 1069 Pine Street 0275/008 RM-4 NE

(Nob Hill) Institutional


12

13. ESTM 817-831 Sutter Street 0299/021 RC-4 NE (Civic

Center) Student Housing Hotel CUA, BP

14 ESTM 930-950 Van Ness Avenue 0718/021 RC-4 NW (Civic

Center) Institutional



SOMA / Bayview



Required

15.** ESTM 601 Brannan Street 3785/132 SALI SE (SOMA) Student

Housing Light

Industrial


to 846.32, CUA, BP

16.* EIR 2225 Jerrold 5286A/020 PDR-2 SE (Bayview)

Student Housing



to 217(h)

17.*** ESTM 460 Townsend Street 3785/023 WMUO SE (SOMA) Institutional


18.*** ESTM 466 Townsend Street 3785/005 WMUO SE (SOMA) Institutional




***Properties contain Production, Distribution and Repair uses. Ordinance 258-14, effective December 19, 2014 imposed an interim moratorium prohibiting the loss of PDR space.

14

PROJECT/LAND USE TYPE. Grouping projects by the type of land use is another approach for the processing of AAU’s applications. There are commonalities between many existing properties, their current legal uses, and the uses that AAU is attempting to legalize. For example, the legal use for many properties is housing or a hotel, and the proposed use to be legalized would be student housing. The Department could group together cases with the same requested action. Grouping projects together in this fashion has the benefit of generating discussion around a common theme at the Commission, and may also provide some efficiency to neighbors who wish to comment about a particular land use topic (i.e. conversion from housing to student housing). However, properties of the same project type may not necessarily be in the same geographic vicinity or zoning district, which may require members of the public to attend multiple hearings.

Processing by Project Type Pros Cons

• Consistent theme at Commission. • Some efficiency for members of the public wishing to

discuss specific policy issues.

• Projects may be located in different zoning districts and neighborhoods; members of the public may need to attend multiple hearings for projects affecting their neighborhood.

Conversion of Residential to Student Housing EIR/

ESTM Address Block / Lot Zoning Quadrant Desired


1.* ESTM 1080 Bush Street 0276/015 RC-4 NE Student

Housing Residential


CUA, BP

2.* ESTM 1153 Bush Street 0280/026 RC-4

NE (Civic

Center)



CUA, BP

3.* ESTM 1916 Octavia Street 0640/011 RH-2

NW Pacific

Heights)



CUA, BP

4.* ESTM 1055 Pine Street 0275/009 RM-4 NE Student

Housing Residential


CUA, BP

5.* ESTM 860 Sutter Street 0281/006 RC-4

NE (Civic

Center)



CUA, BP

6.* ESTM 2209 Van Ness Avenue 0570/029 RC-3 NW Student

Housing Residential


CUA, BP

15

7.* ESTM 2211 Van Ness Avenue 0570/005 RC-3 NW Student

Housing Residential &

Retail


CUA, BP


Conversion of Industrial to Student Housing / Institutional EIR/



8.** ESTM 601

Brannan Street**

3785/132 SALI SE (SOMA)

Institution (School)

Light Industrial


to 846.32, CUA, BP

9*. EIR 2225 Jerrold 5286A/020 PDR-2 SE Student Housing



to 217(h)

10.*** ESTM 460

Townsend Street

3785/023 WMUO SE Institutional (School) Industrial CUA, BP

11.*** ESTM 466

Townsend Street

3785/005 SALI SE Institutional (School) Industrial CUA, BP



***Properties contain Production, Distribution and Repair uses. Ordinance 258-14, effective December 19, 2014 imposed an interim moratorium prohibiting the conversion of PDR space.

16

Conversion of Retail (Including Hotel) to Student Housing / Institutional EIR/



12. ESTM 1069 Pine Street 0275/008 RM-4 NE Institutional (School) Retail CUA, BP


701 Chestnut St.)


NE Institutional (School) Retail CUA, BP

14. ESTM 930-950 Van Ness Avenue 0718/021 RC-4 NW Institutional



0618/001 & 001B RC-4 NW Institutional


16. ESTM 1727 Lombard Street 0506/036 RC-4 NW Student

Housing Motel CUA, BP

17. ESTM 817-831 Sutter Street 0299/021 RC-4 NE Student

Housing Hotel CUA, BP

Conversion of Office / Institutional to Institutional EIR/



18. ESTM 700

Montgomery Street

0196/028 C-2 NE Institutional (School) Office CUA, BP

19. ESTM 2151 Van Ness Avenue 0575/015 RC-4 NW Institutional


(Church) CUA, BP

18

ZONING. Grouping projects by their Zoning poses a third method for bringing cases to the Commission. The benefit of grouping projects together by zoning district is the efficiency of their processing at Planning Commission, especially if they are also of the same project type. Projects in the same zoning district may also be in close proximity to one another, resulting in benefits to members of the public interested in sites that affect their neighborhood. These similarities in zoning and land use topics could enable staff to bring a larger number of projects forward at any one hearing.

Pros Cons • Projects in the same zoning district will have similar

motions, making it more convenient to hear projects and make motions together, particularly if they are of the same project type.

• Project types and locations may vary within the same zoning district resulting in multiple topics and varied geography at any one haring.

Zoning: SALI / PDR-2



Required

1.** ESTM 601 Brannan Street 3785/132 SALI SE Student

Housing Residential CUA, BP

2.*** ESTM 460

Townsend Street


3.*** ESTM 466

Townsend Street


4*. EIR 2225 Jerrold 5286A/020 PDR-2 SE Student Housing



to 217(h)



***Properties contain Production, Distribution and Repair uses. Ordinance 258-14, effective December 19, 2014 imposed an interim moratorium prohibiting the conversion of PDR uses.

19

Zoning: R Districts



Required

5*. ESTM 1080 Bush Street 0276/015 RC-4 NE Student

Housing Residential


CUA, BP

6.* ESTM 1153 Bush Street 0280/026 RC-4 NE (Civic

Center) Student Housing Residential


CUA, BP

7*. ESTM 1055 Pine Street 0275/009 RM-4 NE Student

Housing Residential


CUA, BP

8.* ESTM 1916 Octavia Street 0640/011 RH-2

NW Pacific

Heights)



CUA, BP

9.* ESTM 860 Sutter Street 0281/006 RC-4

NE (Civic

Center)



CUA, BP

10*. ESTM 2209 Van Ness Avenue 0570/029 RC-3 NW Student

Housing Residential


CUA, BP

11*. ESTM 2211 Van Ness Avenue 0570/005 RC-3 NW Student

Housing Residential &

Retail


CUA, BP

12. ESTM 930-950 Van Ness Avenue 0718/021 RC-4 NW Institutional



0618/001 & 001B RC-4 NW Institutional


14. ESTM 1069 Pine Street

0275/008 RM-4 NE Institutional (School)

Retail CUA, BP

15. ESTM 817-831 Sutter Street 0299/021 RC-4 NE Student

Housing Hotel CUA, BP

16. ESTM 1727

Lombard Street

0506/036 RH-2/ NC-3 NW Student

Housing Motel CUA, BP

17. ESTM 2151 Van Ness Avenue 0575/015 RC-4 NW Institutional


(Church) CUA, BP


20

Zoning: NCD/ C-2



Required

18. ESTM 700

Montgomery Street

0196/028 C-2 NE Institutional (School) Office CUA, BP


701 Chestnut St.)


NE Institutional (School) Retail CUA, BP

Conclusion

Of the three options presented by staff, the Department recommends organizing the cases by project type or zoning district, or a hybrid of both. Generally, though not always, cases with the same project type and/ or zoning district are in close proximity to one another with the similar policy issues. Organizing the cases around project type and zoning allows for an in-depth discussion around the significant land use issues and brings some efficiency to the processing of these applications.

As mentioned above and depicted in the AAU Timeline, staff will come before the Planning Commission for another update on AAU once the Institutional Master Plan update has been submitted. Staff estimates this hearing will be scheduled in the December 2015/ January 2016 timeframe.

memo to the planning commissioncommissions.sfplanning.org › cpcpackets ›...

Documents